Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Dr.Saurabh Jain vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2011

Dr.Prasanth M.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 28 July, 2013

11. Ext.P8 judgment was passed by this Court on the very next date of the counseling held on 30.07.2013, holding that there could not have been 100% reservation for the natives of Kerala, in view of the binding judicial precedents rendered by the Apex Court and also by a Division Bench of this Court cited supra. It was accordingly held that, Clauses 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the Prospectus (Ext.P3 therein) and Clauses 2(a)(i) and (ii) of Notification (Ext.P4 therein) were not liable to be enforced W.P.(C)No. 22209 OF 2013 10 against the petitioners and direction was given to recast the list and to give admissions to the petitioners on the basis of their rank in the select list. As a matter of fact , declaration of law was made by the Apex Court as per the decision rendered in Saurabh Chaudri vs. Union of India [(2003) 11 SCC 146] and by a Division Bench of this Court as per the decision in Saurabh Jain vs. State of Kerala [(2011)(2) KLT 646]. The declaration of law is applicable to all persons concerned, irrespective of the fact whether they are parties to the writ petition or not.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document

Dr.Sonia K Das vs Cochin University Of Science And ... on 2 March, 2022

12. Notwithstanding our above finding, and since learned counsel for the appellant wants us to consider the issue of legality of the selection conducted by the respondent university, we deem it appropriate to deal with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. We do find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge ought not to have shut out the case of the appellant for the sole reason that she had participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the fact that the procedure to be followed was to be in accordance with the University Statutes and not that prescribed by the UGC Regulations. The learned Judge was no :14: W.A.No.56 of 2022 doubt right in holding the appellant estopped from impugning the selection on the ground that it was the procedure in the University Statutes and not that in the UGC guidelines that was followed, since she was aware of the procedure that was going to be followed well before the event. That, and the fact that the State Government had adopted the UGC Regulations subject to the said condition would, at any rate, have decided the point against the appellant. However, the decision of this Court in Saurabh Jain v. State of Kerala [2011 (1) KLT 888 (F.B)] and that of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9482 of 2019 (judgment dated 17.12.2019) are authorities for the proposition that a candidate while agreeing to participate in a selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it, and that in a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising there from, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. We are of the view that the plea of the appellant that the selection was vitiated on account of a wrong nomination of Subject Experts and on account of the adoption of an erroneous norm for valuation ought to have been considered on merits by the learned Single Judge. That being said, we find that the said issues would also have to be decided against the appellant for the :15: W.A.No.56 of 2022 following reasons:
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A K Nambiar - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Dennies Paul.L on 13 August, 2025

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the writ W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 10 2025:KER:60429 petitioner argued that in the year 2023 also, the rank list was prepared for the reserved seat for nurses, purely based on merit. In the judgment relied on by the learned Senior Government Pleader, the issue was the denial of a seat to the failed candidates. Whereas in the case of the writ petitioner, he secured the highest rank. Since nurses are a class, subsequent classification among them is a violation of equality envisaged under the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would further submit that since the admission for the year 2024 was closed by 30.09.2024, the learned Single Judge ought to have moulded the relief to give admission to the writ petitioner in the year 2025. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Sudhir N. v. State of Kerala [(2015) 6 SCC 685], Krishna Sradha S. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2020) 17 SCC 465] and that of this Court in Saurabh Jain (Dr.) v. State of Kerala [2011 (1) KHC 680] in support of his arguments.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

Dennies Paul L vs The State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the writ W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 10 2025:KER:60429 petitioner argued that in the year 2023 also, the rank list was prepared for the reserved seat for nurses, purely based on merit. In the judgment relied on by the learned Senior Government Pleader, the issue was the denial of a seat to the failed candidates. Whereas in the case of the writ petitioner, he secured the highest rank. Since nurses are a class, subsequent classification among them is a violation of equality envisaged under the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would further submit that since the admission for the year 2024 was closed by 30.09.2024, the learned Single Judge ought to have moulded the relief to give admission to the writ petitioner in the year 2025. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Sudhir N. v. State of Kerala [(2015) 6 SCC 685], Krishna Sradha S. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2020) 17 SCC 465] and that of this Court in Saurabh Jain (Dr.) v. State of Kerala [2011 (1) KHC 680] in support of his arguments.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

Dr Manjula M vs State Of Karnataka on 17 August, 2012

8. Sri Nataraj, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the facts of Saurab Jain's case and the facts of the case on hand are entirely different. Besides, when this Court's decision and the Apex Court's decisions are readily available, the Kerala High Court's decision may at the most have only a persuasive value. He submits that the issue is covered by this Court's learned Single Judge's order, dated 8.6.2012 in W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012, which is upheld by the Division Bench by its judgement, dated 6.8.2012 passed in W.A.Nos.2978-86/2012 and other connected appeals. He submits that the petitioner's percentage is 57, whereas the candidates securing 68% in the general category are still wait-listed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Hinchigeri - Full Document
1   2 Next